5 ms·

So, the entire nation of Canada gets a free pass to burn all the gas they want? And Russia? And the northern EU? And many parts of China, Japan, northern US (N

So, the entire nation of Canada gets a free pass to burn all the gas they want? And Russia? And the northern EU? And many parts of China, Japan, northern US (NYC!? Buffalo?). Northern Italy, Germany, Switzerland? Does everyone who dips below 0 deg F get to burn gas? -10F? If the infra remains in place with that kind of demand, don't you see the costs being low enough that people elsewhere will want to do that rather than transition to carbon-free for the fun of it? It's hand waved away like this, but did anyone do the analysis as suggested? My guess is the results will not be as easy to wave away as you suggest. But OTOH, maybe heat pumps + overcapacity solar arrays will do it. Who knows?

micromacrofoot 1y ago
I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, but yes, if we had 100% capacity for renewables in non-cold areas (which we're not even close to, even 80% would be miraculous) we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas. They don't have to be of equal priority. We could ignore them completely and focus on the most viable areas and have years and years of work to be done. We are not building nearly as fast as we should. Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. This is not a worthwhile subject to discuss in this context. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  You have to repeat yourself because you're adding information when you state it again. Compare: > if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there with > we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas As in: Ignore vs Delay. It's clear in hindsight, but wasn't on first reading.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    ignore vs delay is irrelevant, if saying "lets ignore it forever" lets us build capacity in other areas faster then let's say "lets ignore it forever" the point is that it's not a problem that should slow down adoption of renewables everywhere else, we don't need to debate nuclear vs renewables because of cold while non-cold areas are still burning tons of fossil fuels constantly saying "but what about cold!" only serves to add further fuel to the constant drag created by the fossil fuel industry, they love these arguments because it sows consumer doubt — they go as far as to fund anti-renewable activism under the guise of environmentalism to a similar effect
    - jvanderbot 1y ago
      It is not necessary to slow down deployment of solar power in, say, Texas, to also answer the question of "What should we do in Minnesota". Nobody implied we shouldn't use renewable power elsewhere until we figure that out. We should not adopt a fixed, falsely dichotomous mindset about this. There are lots of engineers and scientists, and it'd be well past the point of diminishing returns to focus them all on one regional problem at a time. We can do both. Yes, if we are forced to make that choice, your logic is sound. But we are not, and nobody ever implied we were.
      - micromacrofoot 1y ago
        the original comment I was replying to suggested using nuclear in minnesota because renewables won't work well enough there, which is almost completely irrelevant at this point in time with the low rate of renewable adoption... minnesota is nowhere close to full sunny-day utilization and won't be at its current rate for decades
        jvanderbot 1y ago
        You're stuck on the same logic loop of "You can't use nuclear because there isn't enough solar", when nobody said we should only use nuclear. OP wanted to know if solar would be sufficient for MN winters, and if not, what else would be required. He wanted a "Convincing analysis". The sun doesn't rise above 30deg over the horizon, for weeks. (MN > 45deg latitude, and earth tilts away by up to 23.5 deg). It gets below freezing for months, sometimes below zero for weeks. Sometimes below -10F for days (although that's becoming less common). These are legitimate questions. We're not going to find common ground, that's OK. Let's just stop circling around each other and/or worrying about it. Cheers.
        micromacrofoot 1y ago
        What happens when the sun burns out is also a legitimate question, but similar in that we also probably won't be required to answer it within our lifetimes.
- coldpie 1y ago
  > Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. Wait, what? Who in this discussion suggested it was?
  - jvanderbot 1y ago
    Nobody did. GP is dodging the question of what to do in MN by saying it's not important and might require future tech. Edit: it's less important to worry about that at the moment.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      it's not important right now and if we accelerate building renewables elsewhere we may find that it's never important
      - coldpie 1y ago
        Is your argument that new generation capacity in cold climates should be built with fossil fuel plants because it's cheaper, and the saved funds should be directed to areas that are more friendly to renewables?
      - jvanderbot 1y ago
        It makes sense but triggers false dichotomy antibodies and dodges the question OP had, that's all.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, but yes, if we had 100% capacity for renewables in non-cold areas (which we're not even close to, even 80% would be miraculous) we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas. They don't have to be of equal priority. We could ignore them completely and focus on the most viable areas and have years and years of work to be done. We are not building nearly as fast as we should. Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. This is not a worthwhile subject to discuss in this context. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

jvanderbot 1y ago
You have to repeat yourself because you're adding information when you state it again. Compare: > if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there with > we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas As in: Ignore vs Delay. It's clear in hindsight, but wasn't on first reading.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  ignore vs delay is irrelevant, if saying "lets ignore it forever" lets us build capacity in other areas faster then let's say "lets ignore it forever" the point is that it's not a problem that should slow down adoption of renewables everywhere else, we don't need to debate nuclear vs renewables because of cold while non-cold areas are still burning tons of fossil fuels constantly saying "but what about cold!" only serves to add further fuel to the constant drag created by the fossil fuel industry, they love these arguments because it sows consumer doubt — they go as far as to fund anti-renewable activism under the guise of environmentalism to a similar effect
  - jvanderbot 1y ago
    It is not necessary to slow down deployment of solar power in, say, Texas, to also answer the question of "What should we do in Minnesota". Nobody implied we shouldn't use renewable power elsewhere until we figure that out. We should not adopt a fixed, falsely dichotomous mindset about this. There are lots of engineers and scientists, and it'd be well past the point of diminishing returns to focus them all on one regional problem at a time. We can do both. Yes, if we are forced to make that choice, your logic is sound. But we are not, and nobody ever implied we were.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      the original comment I was replying to suggested using nuclear in minnesota because renewables won't work well enough there, which is almost completely irrelevant at this point in time with the low rate of renewable adoption... minnesota is nowhere close to full sunny-day utilization and won't be at its current rate for decades
      - jvanderbot 1y ago
        You're stuck on the same logic loop of "You can't use nuclear because there isn't enough solar", when nobody said we should only use nuclear. OP wanted to know if solar would be sufficient for MN winters, and if not, what else would be required. He wanted a "Convincing analysis". The sun doesn't rise above 30deg over the horizon, for weeks. (MN > 45deg latitude, and earth tilts away by up to 23.5 deg). It gets below freezing for months, sometimes below zero for weeks. Sometimes below -10F for days (although that's becoming less common). These are legitimate questions. We're not going to find common ground, that's OK. Let's just stop circling around each other and/or worrying about it. Cheers.
        micromacrofoot 1y ago
        What happens when the sun burns out is also a legitimate question, but similar in that we also probably won't be required to answer it within our lifetimes.
coldpie 1y ago
> Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. Wait, what? Who in this discussion suggested it was?
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  Nobody did. GP is dodging the question of what to do in MN by saying it's not important and might require future tech. Edit: it's less important to worry about that at the moment.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    it's not important right now and if we accelerate building renewables elsewhere we may find that it's never important
    - coldpie 1y ago
      Is your argument that new generation capacity in cold climates should be built with fossil fuel plants because it's cheaper, and the saved funds should be directed to areas that are more friendly to renewables?
    - jvanderbot 1y ago
      It makes sense but triggers false dichotomy antibodies and dodges the question OP had, that's all.